Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Cracker Steve Erickson

Steve Erickson is with the lying Center for American Progress (the reason, you could argue, that the US started the Iraq War). He thinks he has an idea for how to get votes -- insist if Republicans win, they'll impeach Barack.

And that garbage gets posted on 'Free Speech TV.'

They're whores, don't give a damn dime.

We have learned to starve the beast and our only problem has been that the list of whores gets longer and longer.

I love his 'reasoning' for this supposed impeachment.

See, Cracker Boy Steve explains:[. . .] Obama hasn’t actually done anything to warrant impeachment, or at least
anything as egregious as misleading a public into war, couldn’t be more
beside the point. He’s Obama; his very existence calls for
nullification; the historic fact of his presidency is a transgression
against the national image of those Americans who more and more come to
the conclusion that things started going very wrong in this country
sometime around 1861.

I'm so sick of these White Crackers, these honkey boys at outlets that have damn little African-American writers but rush to insist that others are racists.

Someone needs to slap that elderly Cracker across his smug lying mouth.

Black America doesn't need Cracker Junior to speak for us but, more importantly, shaming your mother in a column?

I don't care if you think she's racist, she's your elderly mother, in her eighties, Cracker, we don't like you, we never will. Looking at your hagged out face and that hair you try to wear in some sort of relaxed fro way, we just laugh at you.

And for "Obama hasn't actually done anything to warrant impeachment," the Fourth Amendment, Cracker. When you can take your mouth off Barack's cock, read it.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, the board of the
Independent High Electoral Commission announces their resignations,
Nouri and the US government continue to try to (mis)use a death to
create havoc in Iraq, an 'analysis' embarrasses herself, and much more.

Anadolu Agency reports
a bombing targeted 3 Iraqi MPs. 3 bodyguards were killed in the
bombing with another four wounded; however MPs Raad al-Dahlaki, Mohamed
al-Khaldi and Abd al-Jabouri all three survived. All are members of
Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi's Motahedoum coaltion. All three
had planned to run in the upcoming elections; however, in a sign of the
state of Iraq, surviving an assassination attempt doesn't mean you've
now survived the last obstacle.

Today, AFP reports,
"All of Iraq’s election commissioners presented their resignations to
parliament Tuesday in a collective protest over political and judicial
'interference' in upcoming legislative polls, sources have said." What
sort of interference? An attempt to strip them of their powers via a
little noticed clause in a bill Nouri's Cabinet wrote and Parliament
passed into law. BBC explains:A clause approved last year allows for the exclusion of candidates considered not "of good reputation".

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, who is seeking a third term, has
been accused of using the law to prevent his political enemies from
standing.

Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) provides context, "IHEC’s complaints roughly mirror those of the last election, that the
Maliki government is trying to use the electoral law’s ban on candidates
of “ill repute” to ban potential rivals en masse." AFP's Prashant Rao Tweets:

Al Mada reports
that the Dawa Party was specifically accused of exploiting the
judiciary to settle scores with political rivals. Dawa, for those who
don't know, is Nouri's political party, State of Law is his coalition.
Al Mada notes that the commission felt wrongly accused of bowing to
Nouri's wishes to dismiss his political opponents, especially when the
decisions were coming from the Baghdad judiciary.

[. . ] Al-Maliki began the effective demolition of the National Unity
government he headed by having an arrest warrant issued for
Vice-President Tareq Al-Hashimi, a Sunni. Hashimi was accused of
involvement in death squads. Helped by Kurds, he fled the country, only
to be tried in his absence and found guilty. Al-Maliki pretended at
the time that the prosecution was important because no one should be
able to escape punishment for past crimes. But this argument was fatally
weakened by the presence in his government of Shiite politicians who
were equally suspected of involvement in the inter-communal violence
that had threatened to tear the country apart. Besides, however terrible
the crimes committed by all parties in Iraq, the country’s future could
only be ensured by reconciliation. Iraq desperately needed to put its
dark past behind and look to a brighter and more prosperous future.Unfortunately
Al-Maliki hardly tried to convince skeptical Sunni politicians and
voters that the prosecution of Hashimi was not motivated by the fact
that the vice-president was a Sunni. That this was indeed the reality
has since become even more apparent as Shia legislators have moved to
exclude former and serving Sunni politicians, including former Finance
Minister Rafie Al-Issawi from standing in next month’s elections. Former
interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a Shiite, and leader of the
National Iraqi Alliance, has himself warned that in the light of these
moves against Sunni politicians, as well as the deteriorating security
situation in the country, the vote cannot go ahead.

The Independent High Electoral Commission,
or IHEC, the authority that is supposed to prepare Iraq for elections
and run electoral procedures, such as voter registration and the actual
voting, recently decided to ban a number of politicians from competing
in the elections. These were independent Shiite Muslim MP, Sabah
al-Saedi, Shiite Muslim MP, Jawad al-Shuhaili, who is aligned with the
Sadrist bloc, MP Haider al-Mulla from the mostly-Sunni Muslim Iraqiya
bloc, MP Rafea al-Isawi, also a Sunni Muslim from the Iraqiya bloc and
one of the country’s most senior Sunni Muslim politicians as well as a
former MP, Mithal al-Alousi, who made headlines in 2004 as one of the
first Iraqi politicians to visit Israel and who previously headed the
de-Baathification commission.

IHEC says the reason for the ban on these politicians is
because they have violated the rule about good conduct. However there
are clearly some problems with this clause – many local legal and
constitutional experts have already said that it is too general and that
it could be used in myriad ways by the unscrupulous.Iraqi lawyer Munir Haddad, who is perhaps best known
outside the country for his time as a judge, presiding over the trial of
former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, told NIQASH: “Iraqi MPs should have
been more careful when they voted on this article. It’s not clearly formulated enough.”“This paragraph is very general and it can be interpreted
any way a person wants,” adds judge Abdul-Raheem al- Ukaili, who
formerly worked with Iraq’s Commission on Integrity.
“Unfortunately IHEC has interpreted this paragraph in an arbitrary way
and it has been used against politicians who are well known for opposing
the government.”Indeed it seemed to many that the “bad behaviour” these
MPs had undertaken simply involved publicly criticizing Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki or his allies.“Politicians who speak about corruption in the government
are now people with bad reputations,” one of the banned MPs, al-Alousi,
complained to NIQASH. “There is a deliberate plan to silence al-Maliki’s
opponents and to ruin democracy in Iraq. We are going to file a lawsuit
at the Supreme Federal Court to defend our rights and we hope this
court won’t bow to political pressure,” he argued.

At some point, IHEC is going to have to be asked about the Niqash report. AFP reports:

Several candidates have been barred in recent weeks on the grounds of
alleged ties to now executed dictator Saddam Hussein's Baath party.
But a greater source of frustration for the IHEC board has been the
exclusion of scores of hopefuls on the basis of what critics say is a
vague provision in Iraq's electoral law that requires that parliamentary
hopefuls be "of good reputation".

Those barred, who include former finance minister Rafa al-Essawi, a
Maliki opponent, have no obvious avenue of appeal against the judicial
panel's decision.

So was the IHEC a fall guy or were they going along? Niqash's report
was important last week, today's actions only made it more important.

Myriam Benraad is all over the map. In an 'analysis' for Cargnegie Endowment for International Peace,
she insists Nouri may win the 2010 elections because Sunnis are at
odds. Reading it, it feels like an anlsyis and more like one of those
useless tip sheets they try to sell you at the races.Let's focus on this because it's really what stands out:

Maliki may be the primary reason for the radicalization of the Sunnis
and growing sectarian reflexes, but the Anbar standoff is not likely to
weaken him electorally. Indeed, renewed violence over the last three
months, the absence of Sunni unity (some tribes are even calling for a
boycott of the elections), and the fragmentation of the Shia political
landscape (Moqtada al-Sadr announced his withdrawal from politics in
February) all create favorable conditions for another term for Maliki.
This will be even more the case if the elections are marked by low
turnout from the Sunnis because of their disillusionment with the
transition. In a context of security vacuum, Maliki depicts himself as
the only viable and legitimate leader for the country, the “strong man”
that Iraqis need.
Nouri's State of Law underperformed in the 2013 provincial elections.
Which is a nice way of saying that, as with the 2010 parliamentary
elections, they lost. Among those who did well in the 2013 elections?
Many were surprised by how well two young leaders ran their parties --
Ammar al-Hakim (Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) and cleric and movement
leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

The two are Shi'ite. The two are rivals of Nouri al-Maliki's. There's
also Nouri original blood rival, the man Nouri loathes but must pretend
to respect: Ibrahim al-Jafaari.

That's the man who should have remained prime minister.

Following December 2005 elections, the Parliament wanted to have
al-Jafaari as prime minister for a second term. The US government said
no. The public reason was that Iraq was too new to have incumbents hold
several terms, it might create a new Saddam Hussein. Instead, the US
government insisted that Nouri be named prime minister (the safe reason
given in whispers to some journalists was that Nouri didn't have his own
militia, the real reason was the psyche profile the CIA did on Nouri --
paranoid and pliable). Ibrahiam al-Jafarri is a Shi'ite, a powerful
one, and he remains in charge of Iraq's National Alliance coalition.

Ayad Allawi is a Shi'ite. He has stood with mixed coalitions. The previous mentioned stand with Shi'ite coalitions.

While you might leave Allawi out of the mix (despite the fact that his
winning Iraqiya in 2010 also received Shi'ite votes), you can't leave
Hakim, Moqtada and Ibarhiam out of the mix.

They are very powerful Shi'ite leaders of Shi'ite coalitions.

And there members have not flocked to Nouri. Not in the 2009 provincial
elections, not in the 2010 parliamentary elections, not in the 2013
provinical elections.

So what crazy pill did you take that led you to believe this election would be different?

Nouri's actions frustrate and worry me and I'm an American in the United
States. Try to grasp what they do to the Shi'ites who don't support
him.

It's not just Sunni opinion that's hardening against Nouri.

Shi'ites see the continued violence, actually the violence that
increased when Nouri got a second term. They see the nonsense of his "I
have a four billion dollar weapons deal with Russia!" followed by "No, I
don't! It's corrupt but it is not due to my son who set up a sweet
side deal during negotiations!" They see the lights out, the lack of
drinking water, the lack of jobs, they see all of this.

And they don't rally around Nouri.

That's especially true of the National Reform Trend which is damn well
aware that Parliament was blocked from naming their own Ibrahim to lead
the country in 2006.
Shi'ites are not a monolithic group but there's always some simpleton or
racist in the press or speaking to it which attempts to portray
Shi'ites as such. Despite acknowledging Shi'ite divisions, Myriam
Benraad dismisses it when it comes to voting.

The National Reform Trend will not be voting for Nouri. Ammar
al-Hakim's group also won't be voting for Nouri. They stuck with his
late father Abdul Aziz al-Hakim and, in the fall of 2009, many decided
to stick with Ammar as the new leader. As the 2010 elections
demonstrated, some chose to leave. But that had actually been evident
in the 2009 provincial elections and may have resulted from Abdul Aziz
al-Hakim's inability to provide direct oversight of the party and
politicians due to his illness (he'd die in the fall of 2009 from
cancer). Frances Romero (Time magazine) noted
Septemeber 4, 2009, "Ammar al-Hakim was confirmed as the Iranian-backed
SIIC's next leader
this week and will begin his work promoting Shi'ite policies throughout
the country." That only gave him six months to take on the leadership
tasks and steer the political party before parliamentary elections were
held.

His 2013 wins and post-election wins suggest the Islamic Supreme Council
of Iraq may see their best parliamentary election performance since the
2005 elections.

Moqtada al-Sadr announced his political retirement February 15th. February 18th, he delivered a speech -- CounterPunch posted the speech in full -- emphasizing his decision. February 26th, NINA noted the rumors that Moqtada left Iraq, "The sources noted in a press statement that Mr. Muqtada al-Sadr left
today's afternoon the city of Najaf heading to the Islamic Republic of
Iran in order to complete his religious studies and stay away from the
political scene as he officially announced for all Iraqis." Yet March 14th, Moqtada returned to Iraq.

Background. Nouri's big mouth ended up tanking his own two-day
conference. For those who missed it, Nouri's fat mouth was flapping
last Saturday insulting many as he spoke to France24. France 24's Mark Perelman interviewed (link is text and video) Nouri for a half hour broadcast which aired Saturday.
In the interview, Nouri's well noted paranoia was on full display as
he repeatedly declared, in the very first two minutes, his alleged
'victory' over those attempting to turn Iraq and Syria into one country
("there are goals to create a one state," "create a state -- one part in
Syria and one part in Iraq"). He continued to gab and began accusing
other countries of supporting terrorism (he was supposedly going to
reveal proof of his gossip in the conference but, as usual, his fat
mouth made empty promises). He also insulted Moqtada.

It's curious that an 'analysis' of the elections would miss the above
especially when the analyst takes the time to note the France24
interview but avoid the remarks about Moqtada.

In fact, here's Myriam Benraad's 'analysis' of Moqtada's impact in full,
"[. . .] and the fragmentation of the Shia political landscape (Moqtada
al-Sadr
announced his withdrawal from politics in February) all create favorable
conditions for another term for Maliki."

How can you be so stupid? She's so stupid she must require someone to follow her around reminding her to breathe.

Not only is there what we've charted above, there's more -- in Nouri's Iraq, there always is. NINA reports
conflict between Nouri's forces and Sadr followers in Sadr City. A
witness tells the news agency, "A group of followers of the Sadrist
movement entered into a verbal altercation with the federal police force
in the Sadrain checkpoint at the entrance to the area, which led the
police to shoot fire in the air to disperse the group. The region has
been shut down by the police and helicopters flight in low level has
been seen over the area." These Sadrists are voters for Nouri
al-Maliki? No, they're not. That's even more the case in the Sadr
strong-hold of Basra.

The previous election saw the Sunni-dominated Iraqiya Party win the
largest plurality, with Maliki’s State of Law faction eventually
retaining power in a “power-sharing” deal imposed on them by the US.
Maliki reneged on virtually all power-sharing, and retains the position
of Prime Minister, Defense Minister, Interior Minister, and Chief of
Staff for the military.

Maybe next time, Carnegie should just ask Jason Ditz to write the analysis?

FYI, I'm being kind by assuming she's dumb. She might be another lie,
another whore, another Quil Lawrence. It's much kinder just to assume
she's stupid. And, no, Quil, we haven't forgotten you or what you did.
Next month, we again acknowledge your role in corrupting democracy in
Iraq.

Throughout the assault, which began December 30th, Nouri's shelling of Falluja has killed and wounded many.

But not one word from the US State Dept despite the fact that these are War Crimes.

Yesterday,
we noted the Saturday incident in which a Peshmerga (Kurdish military)
shot dead Mohamed Bedewi who had worked for years for the US propaganda
outlet Radio Free Iraq (which is to Voice of America what Phyllis was to The Mary Tyler Moore Show).
We noted how the US government and Nouri al-Maliki were engaging in
dangerous behaviors and statements intent upon creating a crisis in
Iraq. IANS reports today:The Kurdish regional government Tuesday accused the central
government in Iraq of stirring up political trouble with the Kurds by
politically exploiting the killing four days ago of an Iraqi journalist
by a Kurdish officer in Baghdad."It's regrettable that the Iraqi prime minister used strange and
inconvenient words like "blood for blood" after the incident, which is
outside law, state governance and the culture of coexistence and
democracy," said the office of Massoud Barzani, president of the
Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), in a statement.

Middle East Monitor points out that the US government has insisted upon calling the death a "murder." Rudaw reports:The
Kurdistan Region Presidency has warned of attempts by Iraqi leaders,
among them Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to take the death of journalist
Muhammad Bidaiwi out of its judicial context and using it to settle
political scores with the Kurds.“It's regrettable that the Iraqi prime minister used the
strange and ugly phrase of "blood for blood" after the incident,” said
the office of President Massoud Barzani in a statement. “This is outside
the law, governance and the culture of co-existence and democracy.”The statement expressed condolences to the family of Bidaiwi,
an Iraqi academic and journalist who was shot dead by a Kurdish
presidential guard in Baghdad on Saturday.

All Iraq News quotes MP Latif Mutafa ("member of the Parliamentary Legal Committee") stating, "The Iraqi constitution assure the independence
of the judiciary and no other authority should interfere in the
performance of the judicial authority where the interference must be
rejected according to the Iraqi Punishment Law No. 11 in 1969. Since Bidaiwi's murder, we witness the interference by the key officials, MPs and Maliki in particular to affect the judicial decision over this case where Maliki should adhere to the oath that he made over preserving the independence of the judiciary." The KRG Presidency issued
a statement which announced sorrow and regret over Mohamed Bedaiwi's
death (which they term "an unfortunate accident" -- and it well may have
been) and dencounces Nouri al-Maliki's statements which are
"inappropriate and strange" and a wide stretch from the rule of law that
the Iraqi government is supposed to embrace and practice.

Yesterday, the House Veterans Affairs Committee issued the following:

HVAC Webpage To Track How VA Stonewalls the Press

For more information, contact: Curt Cashour, (202) 225-3527

Mar 24, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today,
Chairman Jeff Miller launched VA Honesty Project, a new web component
of Veterans.House.Gov designed to highlight the Department of Veterans
Affairs’ lack of transparency with the press, and by extension the
public. View the page here.

Because the Department of Veterans Affairs is a taxpayer funded
organization, it has a responsibility to fully explain itself to the
press and the public. Unfortunately, in many cases, VA is failing in
this responsibility, as department officials – including 54 full-time public affairs employees – routinely ignore media inquiries.

VA Honesty Project documents nearly 70 recent instances in which VA
has failed to respond to reporters’ requests for information or refused
to answer specific questions. The department’s apparent disregard for
the press has become an object of reporters’ scorn, leading some to
openly accuse VA of “thumbing their nose at us” and others to write entire articles focusing on VA’s stonewalling tactics. VA Honesty Project will be continually updated with new examples of VA refusing to respond to the press as they arise.
Following the launch of VA Honesty Project, Chairman Miller issued the following statement.

“With 54 full-time public affairs employees, VA’s media avoidance
strategy can’t be anything other than intentional. What’s worse, the
tactic leaves the impression that department leaders think the same
taxpayers who fund the department don’t deserve an explanation of VA’s
conduct. VA Honesty Project is dedicated to showing America’s veterans,
American taxpayers and department leaders how VA’s media avoidance
strategy is doing the public an extreme disservice while damaging VA’s
reputation in the process. By keeping a running record of VA’s attempts
to stonewall the press, we hope to convince the department to put a
renewed focus on being responsive and transparent with the media so
America’s veterans and taxpayers can get the answers they deserve.” –
Rep. Jeff Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs